<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>(but, ps, for high-end full time wages I'd write an LLVM backend or port to gcc 4.8.0 or port the existing integrated x86 backend, or other, and be more flexible/open-minded. :) Yes I know that is kind of rude and against the spirit of things... )<BR> <BR> - Jay<BR><div><div id="SkyDrivePlaceholder"></div><hr id="stopSpelling">From: jay.krell@cornell.edu<br>To: lemming@henning-thielemann.de; m3devel@elegosoft.com<br>Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 23:05:16 +0000<br>Subject: Re: [M3devel] FW: GCC 4.8.0 Released<br><br>
<style><!--
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P {
padding:0px;
}
.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage {
font-size:12pt;
font-family:Calibri;
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr">I favor a C backend for a few reasons. <br> - portability -- C supports more than LLVM, past and future <br> I haven't been able to build LLVM on my old MacOSX. <br> - a possible portable source distribution, like most software, but, granted, not like many compilers, and granted, while the C backend now works quite well, this problem still needs a lot of work <br> - Not having to learn LLVM, resting on my C knowledge; might apply to others <br> - LLVM might have the same m3gdb integration problem as C, no better, no worse <br> <br> <br> On the other hand, LLVM is good for: <br> - learn something new <br> - resulting compiler will probably run faster <br> <br> <br> - Jay <br><div><div id="ecxSkyDrivePlaceholder"></div>> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 22:57:29 +0100<br>> From: lemming@henning-thielemann.de<br>> To: m3devel@elegosoft.com<br>> Subject: Re: [M3devel] FW: GCC 4.8.0 Released<br>> <br>> <br>> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013, Tony Hosking wrote:<br>> <br>> > In my opinion it would be better to work on an LLVM backend.<br>> <br>> Btw. does someone of you attend to the Euro-LLVM meeting 29-30th April?<br></div> </div></div> </div></body>
</html>